I HAVE to add my 2 cents. I can't take it anymore.
Using this license (and ESPECIALLY the SRD) is not game OR a hobby. It is
a legal act with legal ramifications. Anyone who thinks this is a simple
fan tool better think twice or you are going to end up on the wrong end of
a lawsuit. If you have ANY intention of making ANY money doing this you
had better treat it like an honest to god business. Get a lawyer. Form
the business legally. Fill out local, state and federal forms required to
form your company, etc etc etc.. Get an accountant and all the rest.
D&D is a game. This isn't. Stop treating it like the guidelines for
building a fan site. You're wasting email and time rehashing these issues
again and again.
(Grumble grumble frickin frackin riffin raff.)
At 05:15 PM 3/29/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 4:29 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [Open_Gaming] Plain Engrish License
> >
> >
> > It's a new, and I think long overdue, trend in law to cut the
> > crap and write
> > in plain English.
>
>This is a trend that is doomed to fail. Like it or not, legalese is precise.
>English is not. "Plain English text" often means as many things as there are
>readers. Maybe more.
>
>To see why this noble (and understandable!) sentiment is misguided, look at
>some analogous proposals:
>
>1. "I think musical notation is crap. Music should be written in Plain
>English." Well, assuming you could do this, the resulting text would be
>easily ten times as long as the original score, AND it would be impossible
>to play.
>
>2. "I think mathematics is crap. Math should be written in Plain English."
>Can't be done. Plain English cannot express certain mathematical concepts.
>
>3. "I think programming languages are crap. Programs should be written in
>Plain English." Programs must be precise. Plain English isn't. Attempts at
>"natural language programming" ultimately stumble over this hurdle: when two
>native English speakers can disagree on the meaning of a simple sentence,
>how in the world do you write programmatic rules for interpreting that
>sentence AND every other sentence that comes along? Researchers have been
>trying for decades, and they still don't have a general solution.
>
>Terms in legalese have precise meanings established over centuries of
>jurisprudence. Plain English is a constantly changing, living language which
>changes with the times, the culture, and even the individual speaker.
>
>
> > As I read this list, more and more folks are saying "If
> > you're thinking of working with the OGL license, consult a lawyer.",
>
>Not quite. What we're saying is, "If you place any value in your work
>whatsoever, consult a lawyer before using the OGL and the STL. If you place
>no value in it and don't mind losing it all, don't bother consulting a
>lawyer. And even then, you may find yourself liable for unintended
>consequences."
>
>
> > to
> > which I have much to say, considering that the abolition of the
> > lawyer class
> > in America would be a plus in my book. Not to point fingers and
> > heckle, but
> > is everyone on this list so concerned about being sued by using the OGL or
> > d20? Is this the sort of environment that we are fostering with the open
> > gaming movement? "Open Your Games but Watch Your Ass?"
>
>Yes. This is the real world, not some free love fantasy world. These
>licenses have real legal obligations with real legal consequences.
>Pretending they do not will change that.
>
>
> > For every person that wanders into this list and is told "see a lawyer", I
> > have a better suggestion: maybe we should have an OGL written so
> > that people
> > can frickin' understand the thing, instead of this host of
> > priests whose job
> > it is to interpret the thing like chicken entrails.
>
>You are welcome to make such a license if you wish. Others are welcome to
>use it if they wish. More power to you. Maybe you will write a better
>license that protects the rights of creators and still encourages the
>creation of material that works well together. Maybe yours will be
>comprehensible to every lay reader without the slightest chance of
>misinterpretation. If you do this, I'll bet a number of people will release
>games and game products under your license. I look forward to reading it.
>
>But if you fail... If your license gives away the rights of creators... If
>your license leaves creators unduly vulnerable to suits... Then people will
>stick with the licenses written by the professionals.
>
>Yes, there's that word: "professional". That's a dirty word to some folks,
>particularly folks who hate lawyers. Well, I happen to agree, in some sense:
>I wish it were easier for laymen to practice law. Maybe then more laymen
>would get educated on the law.
>
>But "professional" implies a careful study of the field, not just spot
>knowledge. You can write software without being a professional programmer;
>you can practice first aid without being a professional doctor; and you can
>execute your own legal documents without being a professional lawyer. But
>that doesn't mean a professional won't do a job that is orders of magnitude
>better.
>
>Martin L. Shoemaker
>
>Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com
>http://www.UMLBootCamp.com
>
>-------------
>For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
